Beer and Politics 3

Dave the Puma’s contribution ran like this:-

There was a brief period when the greatest disparities in income and ownership of wealth were reduced.   It ran from the end of the 40’s to the 70’s.. Remember that?   For most of us, that was your childhood , youth and early adulthood, that was.  It was based on hard lessons learned in the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s, and in two world wars.  Basically, these were: we are all in this together, certain goods should be provided collectively, e.g. health and education, and progressive taxation is good. Oh yeah, and that did not stop people having material progress, and quite a few getting fairly rich in the 50’s and 60’s: Lord Rayne (Max Rayne) made stupid amounts of money re-developing central London, for example; so you can’t complain that it was all Stalinist and there was only one kind of knickers available, see? Of course, the improvement in household economic equality wasn’t quite enough; I (we?) wanted personal liberation and other kinds of equality as well, so it wasn’t the desired end state, either..

During that magic time, in the words of one commentator, the bottom three quarters of society ganged up on the top quarter and made them behave themselves, for once. More equal societies are, on the whole, happier (see “The Spirit Level”, by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Picket, pub. Allen Lane, 2009, if you want an argument). Of course, the Tories hated it, and will do anything to get rid of the vestiges.  Blair/Brown didn’t do enough (much?) to reverse what That Woman started. However, Cameron will try to finish the job.  Currently, the distribution of wealth is back to what it was in 1937, I believe. 

(That was addressed to members of Slim’s List, most of whom met each other at the end of the 60’s/early 70’s, and now look on the current situation in mild horror.  A fair number lived in, or knew of University College London’s Max Rayne House, funded all or in part by Rayne; hence the reference to him)

Beer, Taxation and Politics: more

Another friend, Dick Scarborough, added the following healthy little rant about the state of the world, and our American Professor’s ideas on taxation:-

The problem of course is that this only refers to direct taxes. Most tax in Britain is charged through things like VAT. Assume rich man number 10 has an income of ... ooh, say £50,000 a week (far less than many premiership footballers earn) and eats and drinks much better than numbers 1-4 on an income of £100 a week (and that is being generous to those on unemployment). Numbers 1-4 spend maybe £20 a week in Tesco on crap food full of sugar and salt, because that's what is cheapest. They don't own a car because they can't afford it, or they drive around with no tax and insurance or MOT, waiting to have a lethal accident that will put them in jail and someone else (probably also poor) also ends up on Benefits as there is no insurance money. The rich guy spends maybe £5,000 a week on food of the highest quality and lives in a comfortable house rather than the over-priced and draughty slum the bottom 4 live in. He is rich because his forebears did something to please the king and were given loads of (untaxed) free land and stuff (including control over the poor). He will live years longer, and the taxes on his bought goods, although far more than what the poor pay, come out at a fraction in terms of the percentage of his income, even though he drives round in a Rolls Royce that does about 10 miles to the gallon, thus trashing the world for the next generation. That's when he isn't doing even worse by travelling in his own jet. If he were to leave the country a left wing government (has there ever been one here?) might nationalise his land or whack enormous taxes on it that he can't avoid, thus leaving him abroad - but poor. The way round this is what has been happening for ages. The rich transfer a lot of their assets to other countries to cover against such an event - but they can't take the land out, or the property. First move the Tories did when they came in? Tried to take the woods away from us (and I don't mean Graham and Heather). They were defeated by lots of people, including some of us, raising a stink, but they have already nicked most of the country, at least since 1066, and the most the majority of us will ever have is a house and maybe an acre or two, and for many that isn't going to happen.

Snappy Responses to Beer, Taxation and Politics

Quick as a flash, we received the following:-

Is this is the sort of Tory crap you hear in the leafy suburbs? 

No; the Tories would have turned the bar into a private club, open only to men numbers 7 - 10.

The threat of drinking elsewhere is one the wealthy have been using for decades to browbeat the gullible.  There is no evidence of any of them doing any such thing.  Despite this, they still make a habit of sneaking round the back of the pub and collecting a refund from the landlord, who appears to be utterly terrified that he might lose their custom,  or he just likes having toffs in his pub.  

(Thanks to Mary, Len and Iain Mac)

Beer, Taxation and Politics

A few weeks ago, a friend of mine posted this on our group site.  I am not certain why; he probably thought it was funny (OK, it is a bit); he might have thought it made some sort of sensible point.  It certainly provoked righteous rage.  Have a look. 

The UK tax system in beer.

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this.. The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay £1. The sixth would pay £3. The seventh would pay £7.The eighth would pay £12.The ninth would pay £18.And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59. So, that´s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I´m going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody´s share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man´s bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay. And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).he seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!" "Yeah, that´s right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It´s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!". "That´s true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!""Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn´t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next week the tenth man didn´t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn´t have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.Professor of Economics.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

(who’s a clever boy then……. .  We shall see what the rest of us said -   Dave the Puma)

 

Clegg! This is about more than just fees, you PATRONISING GIT!

(Wording of a poster photographed at a student protest march in Edinburgh, Guardian, 7th December, 2010).  You’re right; it’s not.  I hope he didn’t mean Clegg simply failing to keep his promises either.  Bank makes £11 bn profit and pays only 1% tax; public sector workers laid off, Middle East erupts in protest at ghastly old regimes; draw it all together and go beyond the single issues. 

Perhaps they will.  I hope that, with a bit of luck, people sense that there is a change of mood; not just opposing this policy or that, but starting to talk about the moral basis of society, and by protest, gain the upper hand in the morals and values debate.  They don’t want to get tied down in tedious debate over abstruse political theory in the way the Sixties radicals did, but they do need to start pulling it all together and talking about changing society.

In the pub, a friend of mine objected to comments about bankers’ bonuses.  After a few ravings about fairness from me, he muttered something about the world having changed since Margaret Thatcher; that’s the way the economy works now.  The terms under which we work have changed.  Well, people, go and change them again or put up with more patronising gits.